ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)
1. The applicant herein has prayed to take action against the opponents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for committing contempt of this Court by willful disobedience of the order dated 4th April 2008.
2. The applicant had filed Special Civil Application No. 5839 of 2008 challenging the order dated 29 February 2008 passed by Special Secretary (Appeals) in Revision Application No. 62 of 2004. By the said order the Special Secretary (Appeals) had set aside the order of the District Collector, Surat, passed in favour of the applicant and the revision application was allowed. The Special Secretary (Appeals) had ordered that the names of all the heirs of Ambaram Motiram be entered in the record of rights. Initially on 4 April 2008 notice was issued in the matter and interim relief in terms of paragraph 7(B) of the petition was also granted till next date of hearing. Paragraph 7(B) reads as under:
“7(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Special Civil Application, to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 29.02.2008 passed by the Special Secretary (Appeal) in Revision Application No. 62 of 2004.”
3. The aforesaid petition was thereafter admitted by this Court on 7 August 2008 by granting interim relief till final disposal of the petition.
4. According to the applicant, the order dated 4 April 2008 was served upon the opponent No. 1-City Survey Superintendent by letter dated 5 April 2008 and copy of the orders was attached with the said letter. It is alleged that despite the fact that the order of the Special Secretary (Appeal) was stayed, the opponent no. 2 filed an affidavit dated 8 April 2008 before the City Survey Superintendent mentioning the names of all the heirs of Ambaram Motiram with a view to make effect necessary in the City Survey Record. The City Survey Superintendent made an entry No. 1081 on 8 April 2008 and thereby implemented the order of Special Secretary (Appeals) and entered the names of all the heirs of Ambaram Motiram in the City Survey Property Card.
5. The applicant has therefore alleged that the opponents, despite having knowledge of the order of this Court have deliberately flouted the same in utter disregard thereof and proceeded to execute and implement the order of Special Secretary (Appeals), which action is contemptuous.
6. However, the facts remains that after the order dated 4 April 2008, notice under section 135(B) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 was issued on 8 April 2008. Since the City Survey Superintendent was not a party to the proceedings the applicant preferred Civil Application No. 6169 of 2008 to implead him as party respondent. This application was allowed on 16 May 2008.
7. It is required to be noted that though the Civil Application was moved on 13 May 2008, by which time, the order has been implemented, the applicant did not think it fit to pray for an order of status quo ante as on 4 April 2008. In fact the learned Judge in the order dated 16 may 2008, while allowing the aforesaid Civil Application has pointed out that the City Survey Superintendent has acted upon the order dated 29 February 2008 passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals) in Revision Application No. 62 of 2004 in spite of the fact that it has been stayed. Therefore this Court has directed that no action be taken pursuant to the notice dated 8 April 2008 regarding Entry No. 1081 till further orders.
8. We are of the view that on coming to know that the impugned order has been implemented, the applicant ought to have prayed for status quo ante as on 4 April 2008. The applicant has not done this. Apart from that the interim relief was confirmed on 7 August 2008 by the learned Single Judge.
9. Even at that stage, it was not brought to the notice of the Court. The appropriate remedy at the relevant point of time was to move the learned Judge for granting status quo ante. Though the alleged contempt is committed on 8 April 2008, the applicant has not made any attempt to bring the same to the notice of this Court on 7 August 2008 when the interim relief was confirmed. Even otherwise the applicant could have moved an appropriate application for rectifying the situation. In any case further proceedings are already stayed pursuant to the notice dated 8 April 2008 and in fact the City Survey Superintendent was a not a party to the proceedings when the order in question was passed. Therefore, we are of the view that this is not a case where contempt proceedings are required to be initiated against the opponents. However, it is made clear that the entry made by the City Survey Superintendent, who was not a party to the proceedings, will be subject to the result of the main writ petition, which is pending before this Court.
10. With the above direction this application is disposed of. No order as to costs.